cnoe

Yeah, I wish I'd said that. It makes sense. Off the top of my head I'd say it takes less force on the trim wheel in flight to trim "up" than it does on the ground. So I'll assume that forces on the tail aren't that great (in level flight).

A pleasant thought indeed! It always amazes me how few 1/4-28 bolts there are between joyous flight and certain doom.

My understanding is that the horiz stab is providing a downward force in level flight.

Thanks for your help clh; I may still take you up on the offer. But if anybody else needs a larger one and would like to trade I'm still interested.

I have a couple extra of the larger under-wing inspection covers but need one of the smaller versions. Does anybody have an extra inspection cover (small)? And would you be willing to trade for a large one? Thanks, Cnoe

Here's a question for those of you with aerodynamics expertise. And if anybody else wants to chime in your comments will be noted. Does anybody know "how much" downward force is applied to the horizontal stabilizer during level flight at cruise? And do you believe that said force is "less, equal, or more" than the weight of the tail assembly itself? My observation has been that when trimming the tail on the ground using the electric trim it seems to struggle just a bit when trimming up because it is effectively "lifting" the weight of the tail. But when trimming down the weight of the tail "assists" the motor. So the reason for my question is this... I can't "hear" the trim motor in cruise and I'm wondering if it is still struggling when trimming up, or whether the aerodynamic forces on the tail might lessen the load on the motor. Any thoughts on this?

What year J? Mine ('78) doesn't use a crank but instead has a t-handle with a cable between the seats that you pull up several times. The placard says it takes 12-20 pulls though I can't remember exactly how many mine takes. All that "cranking" sounds like a lot of work. Just curious if some of the newer planes reverted back to cranks vs. t-handles.

IIRC there are no "nozzles" that spray-lubricate the cam lobes unless you've opted for one of a couple STC'd mods; they're splash lubricated only. Now the bearings are pressure lubricated but if they are oil starved you'll know it quickly. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

To clarify, I'm not talking about testing the resistance of the battery; I'm talking about using resistors to impart a load on the battery. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

From this website: There is a notion that internal resistance is related to capacity, and this is false. The resistance of modern lead acid and lithium-ion batteries stays flat through most of the service life. Advancements in electrolyte additives are reducing internal corrosion issues that were in part responsible for the rise in resistance. The only way to accurately measure the capacity of a battery is to measure it directly. You could get pretty close by interpolating the results from a smaller voltage decrease then the specified 10V terminating voltage. As you can see from Emmet's graphs, the discharge rates are pretty linear. Emmet's battery looks to be in good shape but a weak battery will typically show a steep voltage curve downward plotted against time well before it reaches 10V. It's quite simple to add an appropriate load (whether from a resistance apparatus or your high-draw equipment) and plot the voltage drop over time. The results will easily show if the battery is bad. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

A couple of Ohmite 300W resistors wired in parallel make a nice load source. I've used this setup using 3.1 ohm resistors for several years to gauge battery condition on underwater diver propulsion vehicles with SLA batteries. I wouldn't recommend discharging below 10.5V though to minimize any chance of battery damage. You will know very quickly whether or not the battery is weak as the voltage curve will begin to crash fairly quickly. A quick look shows these resistors available on Ebay etc. for ~$20 each. I didn't check digikey or elsewhere. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Even with 8 qts the cam sits high and (eventually) dry once the engine's shut down. After a period of time (insert your best guess here) the oil drains into the pan further exposing internal surfaces. I'm just regurgitating what I've read and been told. But note that Lycoming says that 2 qts is all it takes to lubricate the engine. So 6 qts seems like enough to me for most of my flights, even if it's sitting for 3-4 weeks. Anything longer than a month and I'm going to pickle it (in my humid area anyway). Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thanks for the note Byron. I may discuss options with you later. I don't want to introduce a cooling issue by eliminating these but it would be nice to have a passenger vent there. I need to investigate further but I think other than these lines I only have one WEAK avionics fan behind the panel. And I sure don't want overheating issues with my GNS either. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It this info is of any benefit my '78 J has a couple pieces of tubing that route air from the starboard forward vent to the avionics (see pic). It leads thru an aluminum manifold, and there's no eyeball vent on that (passenger) side. The tubing is a bit grungy on the inside but I believe it directs airflow to the stack full-time. Do others have an eyeball on the right side? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Just landed Honolulu....All I can think about is bikinis.....but thats me..... Finally, somebody in this thread who doesn't need a shrink.[emoji57] Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

... and there's always the converted mobility scooter (as seen in a previous thread). Doubles as a Walmart shopping aid as well.[emoji57] Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I quickly read this and didn't see if anybody mentioned Foreflight's secondary screen brightness control available in settings. Once you turn the iPad's native brightness all the way down you can dim it even further within settings. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Mustang All of the above would be vastly superior to "no elevator trim tabs"! I'd buy the shirt if it had the models listed and not all the weird speeds listed like 170 kt cruise. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I applaud the effort but they may want to hire an editor. There are a few erroneous markings including the Lycoming code for the engine (no such thing as an O-360-A1B6D fuel-injected 200HP engine). Also "cowling" doesn't have an "e". Sorry to nit-pick but there are several things in the text that are questionable. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well... Both the E and J are great planes, but in the Mooney lineup I personally find them to be quite different. I previously partnered in an E, and now own a J so I speak from (limited but actual) experience. The E had better acceleration and climb but lacked the stability of the J. The E had a more sporty feel but didn't hold pitch trim nearly as well (altitude hold will cure that if your E has it). The J was faster by several knots but you mention putting "the mods" on the E which could mean just about anything. Do you have a strong preference for a manual vs electric gear; most people do? Keep in mind that the oldest J is still 12 years newer than a '65 E which may or may not make a difference. A nice '65 E is way better than a run out J. But comparing apples to apples (similar condition/equipment) I'd take the J myself, but your mission may be different than mine. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There's a thread on MS somewhere about "repairing" these. A search might turn up some more info. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

John, I'm not sure if you're sporting 4 or 6 cylinders but FYI... I installed an 830 about 6 months ago in the portrait orientation and am displaying 10 data fields on the right. That (configuration) info was nearly impossible to get from JPI prior to installation. The unit works great for me and didn't require a new panel to make it fit. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I get paid on the 1st and 15th of each month. Would it be okay if I just set up an auto-pay for $0.42 each pay-day? Just kidding of course. [emoji57] Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Keep in mind that you don't have to pay Foreflight for the added features (logbook and/or synthetic vision) if you don't want or need them. On their website you can click "build your own plan" and still purchase Foreflight Pro for only $149.99/yr. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Doesn't appear to be the case. It is the case. And you think checking the notams before a flight, flying 3 or 4 hours and not checking again is safe operation? OK... Okay then, I stand corrected. "Is the case". But please make no assumptions about my due diligence checking notams. In the case I'm referring to my flight leg was 1.6 hours due to diversions (planned for 45 minutes), not "3 or 4 hours". I'm certainly no expert on all things flying and am only stating my opinion, but I believe that there was nothing imprudent about my flight planning or execution. It sucked for me that Center cleared me to land on a closed runway but I did what I was taught and called "missed" when the lights weren't visible at MDA, then executed plan B. Have a Merry Christmas! Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk